JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 6; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI appearing for respondent No.3; Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent No.5. Ms. L. Devi also appears for respondent No.4 as the learned Standing Counsel, NRC. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for review of the order passed by this Court on 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 by which the aforesaid writ petition filed by the review petitioner challenging the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur(1st), Assam in F.T. Case No.301/2016 declaring him to be a foreigner who entered into India illegally from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 24.03.1971, was dismissed. 3. Before we enter into the merit of the case and consider the rival contentions submitted before this Court, we will reproduce the order passed by this Court on 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 which is sought to be reviewed, for better appreciation. The aforesaid order dated 03.12.2018 reads as follows, “03.12.2018 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. G. Sarmah, learned counsel for respondent no.1; Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 5 & 6; Ms. N. Upadhayay, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Ms. A. Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Petitioner assails the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam in F.T. Case No.301/2016, declaring him to be a foreigner who entered into India illegally from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 24.03.1971. To dispel the suspicion that he is a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, he claimed relationship with one Sahed Ali of Village-Borghat under Balipara LAC as his projected father. To dispel the suspicion that he is a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, he claimed relationship with one Sahed Ali of Village-Borghat under Balipara LAC as his projected father. To establish the linkage he produced and exhibited 3(three) documents, namely, (i) the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1966 (Exhibit-A), recording the name of his projected father Sahed Ali, aged 25 years, (ii) the certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1989 (Exhibit-B), recording the name of the petitioner, aged 29 years along with his 2(two) brothers i.e. Atarjan Akond, aged 57 years and Muslem Ali, aged 31 years, showing their relationship with one Sahed Ali, and (iii) single voter digitally certified copy of the Electoral Roll of 1993 (Exhibit-C), recording the name of the petitioner, with relationship with one Late Sahed Ali. Save and except the 3(three) documents above, no other voter lists are produced and exhibited recording the name of the petitioner together with his projected father as voters. The whereabouts of the projected father after 1966 is also not explained in the written statement so filed. What surprises the most is the Exhibit-B Electoral Roll of 1989. Looking at the age of his elder brother Atarjan Akond, shown as 57 years, by simple arithmetics said Atarjan Akond was 34 years in the year 1966 when the age of his father Sahed Ali in the Electoral Roll of 1966 was recorded as 25 years. Clearly, Sahed Ali of the Electoral Roll of 1989 is a different person/entity from the Sahed Ali of Electoral Roll of 1966. In so far as Exhibit-C is concerned, the same being a digitally issued document, was not proved in accordance with law, thus making the said document as inadmissible in evidence. Apparently, the petitioner failed to establish his linkage to Sahed Ali of the 1966 Electoral Roll. The contents in Exhibit-A and that of Exhibit-B clearly shows that Sahed Ali in both the documents are two different persons, having regard to the inherent impossibility where Atarjan Akond, elder brother of the petitioner, appears older than the projected father Sahed Ali, considering the base year as 1966. In the course of arguments, Mr. Biswas made submission that in the notice issued by the Tribunal the petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner, entering into India within the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream. In the course of arguments, Mr. Biswas made submission that in the notice issued by the Tribunal the petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner, entering into India within the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream. This being the position, it is argued that the impugned opinion declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner, illegally entering into the territory of India after 24.03.1971, stands vitiated as it travelled beyond the terms of reference. To look at an answer, we perused the case records received from the Tribunal and find that although the notice issued by the Tribunal made mention of the aforesaid stream, but the documents relating to the interrogation report and the reference made by the concerned Superintendent of Police (Border) clearly mentions that the petitioner was suspected to have entered into India illegally after 25.03.1971. Having regard to the disclosure in the records, we find that the submission so made is misconceived. For all the reasons aforestated we find no infirmity in the opinion rendered by the Tribunal. As a corollary, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No cost. Registry to send back the case records to the Tribunal forthwith.” 4. The review petitioner contends that the aforesaid order would clearly indicate that this Court had dismissed the writ petitioner, WP(C) No.5888/2018, primarily, on two grounds. 5. The first ground is that the voters list of 1989 shows the name of one Atarjan Akond, aged about 57 years along with other brothers of the petitioner and the name of the said Atarjan Akond does not appear in the voters list of 1966 which has been relied upon by the petitioner as containing the name of his father, namely, Sahed Ali and since the said Atarjan Akond has been shown to be 57 years who is stated to be the elder brother of the petitioner, he would be 34 years in the year 1966 when the age of his father Sahed Ali in the Electoral Roll of 1966 has been shown as 25 years in which event, the said Atarjan Akond would be elder to Sahed Ali. According to the Tribunal, this is not possible as the elder brother of the petitioner could not have been older than the father of the petitioner. According to the Tribunal, this is not possible as the elder brother of the petitioner could not have been older than the father of the petitioner. This Court observed that there is inherent impossibility where Atarjan Akond, elder brother of the petitioner, appears to be older than the projected father Sahed Ali. 6. It was also observed by this Court that as far as Exhibit-C, the voters list of 1993, is concerned, the same is a digitally issued document and not proved in accordance with law. Hence, this Court also took the view that petitioner had failed to establish his linkage with Sahed Ali of the 1966 Electoral Roll. 7. This Court also considered the submission advanced that while the petitioner was suspected to be a foreigner entering India within the 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971 stream, the finding of the Tribunal was that the petitioner had entered India after 24.03.1971 and as such, the Tribunal had travelled beyond the terms of reference. This Court in the said writ petition, after perusal of the case records received from the Tribunal, observed that although the notice issued by the Tribunal made a mention of the aforesaid stream of 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971, the documents relating to the interrogation report and the reference made by the concerned Superintendent of Police (Border) clearly show that the petitioner was suspected to have entered India illegally after 25.03.1971 and as such, in view of the above records, the submission was held to be without merit and accordingly, this Court on the earlier occasion declined to interfere with the opinion of the Tribunal. 8. It is quite apparent that this Court had upheld the finding of the Tribunal which, according to the review petitioner, is vitiated on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the Tribunal wrongly considered the said Atarjan Akond as his brother though in effect the said Atarjan Akond is his mother and this Court also accepted the said position. 9. While going through the opinion dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam in F.T. Case No.301/2016, we have noted that the learned Tribunal had considered the said Electoral Rolls for the years 1966 and 1989 and made the following observations, “6. The proceedee has produced 3(three) Nos. 9. While going through the opinion dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam in F.T. Case No.301/2016, we have noted that the learned Tribunal had considered the said Electoral Rolls for the years 1966 and 1989 and made the following observations, “6. The proceedee has produced 3(three) Nos. of documents along with his Written evidence in support of his Indian Citizenship regarding which described below:- Ext. ‘A’ is a Certified copy of electoral roll for the year 1966 whereby the Proceedee has claimed that the name of his father is recorded therein as Sahed Ali S/o Rohim. In the said Ext. the age of said Sahed Ali S/o Rohimis shown as 25 years. Except the said document the Proceedee could not file any other document having the name of his projected father. The Proceedee has also not stated anything where said Sahed Ali had gone after the age of his 25 years. 7. Ext. ‘B’ is also a Certified copy of electoral roll for the year 1989 whereby the Proceedee has claimed that his name is recorded therein as Hajarat Ali S/o Sahed Ali. It is seen that in that in the said document the names of three sons of Sahed Ali are recorded as voters namely Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hajarat Ali. From the said Ext. it is clearly established that all the above named persons i.e. Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hajarat Ali are the sons of Sahed Ali. In the said document the age of the Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hajarat Ali are shown as 57 years 31 years and 29 years respectively. If the age of Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hajarat Ali were 57 years 31 years and 29 years in the year 1989 then their age in the year 1966 would be 34 years 8 years and 6 years respectively, whereas Sahed Ali S/o Rohim who is claimed as the father of the Proceedee is shown as 25 years in the year 1966. From which it is seen that Atarjan Akond S/o Sahed Ali is 9 years older to Sahed Ali S/o Rohim, who is projected as the father of the Proceedee. From which it is seen that Atarjan Akond S/o Sahed Ali is 9 years older to Sahed Ali S/o Rohim, who is projected as the father of the Proceedee. Hence it is proved that Sahed Ali who is shown the father of Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hajarat Ali i.e. the Proceedee and Sahed Ali S/o Rohim whose name is recorded as voter in the year 1966 (Ext. A) are two different persons.” 10. Thus, from the above, it is quite evident that the Tribunal treated Atarjan Akond as one of the sons of Sahed Ali i.e. a brother of the petitioner, where the age of said Atarjan Akond has been shown as 57 years in the electoral roll of 1989. The Tribunal made the observation that if the said Sahed Ali who the petitioner claims to be his father was 25 years in the year 1966, Atarjan Akond who is the son of Sahed Ali and brother of the petitioner would be 9 years older than Sahed Ali, son of Rohim who is projected as the father of the proceedee which is not possible and as such, the Tribunal held that it is proved that Sahed Ali who is shown as the father of Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hajarat Ali i.e. the Proceedee, and Sahed Ali, son of Rohim whose name is recorded as voter in the year 1966 (Ext.A) who the petitioner claims to be his father are two different persons. 11. We have noted that the Tribunal also made certain observation about Exhibit-C which is a digitally certified copy of the Electoral Roll which was not considered on the ground that it is a digitally issued document and not proved as required under law. 12. The learned Tribunal made another observation that though the proceedee claimed that he had shifted from village Borghat to his present place of residence i.e. village No.1 Malijan Kailabhata, he neither produced any document nor any witness to prove that he was originally residing in village Borghat. 13. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration the plea raised by the proceedee that while the notice issued by the Tribunal mentioned that he had entered Assam between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971, in the present reference, it is mentioned that the proceedee is staying continuously in India after 25.03.1971. 13. The learned Tribunal also took into consideration the plea raised by the proceedee that while the notice issued by the Tribunal mentioned that he had entered Assam between 01.01.1966 to 25.03.1971, in the present reference, it is mentioned that the proceedee is staying continuously in India after 25.03.1971. The Tribunal also noted that the proceedee himself took the plea in his written statement that he had not entered Assam after 25.03.1971 without any valid document and as such, the Tribunal did not give any importance to such a plea raised and accordingly, the Tribunal declared the review petitioner to be a foreigner who entered India illegally from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 24.03.1971. 14. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the voters list of 1989 would show that Atarjan Akond has been shown as the wife of Sahed Ali, and in the Column No.5 indicating the gender of the person, it has been clearly mentioned to be a female. If that is so, the Tribunal could not have proceeded with the assumption that Atarjan Akond is the son of Sahed Ali and brother of the petitioner. Had the said Atarjan Akond been a son of Sahed Ali, the gender would have been reflected as male and accordingly, it has been submitted that this is an error apparent on the face of the record. The observation of the Tribunal as well as of this Court that Atarjan Akond is the son of Sahed Ali is contrary to the record which is also clearly visible and can be ascertained without undertaking any exhaustive enquiry. 15. This Court while dismissing the writ petition, WP(C) No.5888/2018 also proceeded on the assumption that Atarjan Akond, aged about 57 years was elder brother of the petitioner. This Court, on the ground that the said Atarjan Akond, the elder brother of the petitioner could not have been older than his projected father Sahed Ali, proceeded to hold that the said Sahed Ali as mentioned in the Electoral Roll of 1966 and Sahed Ali as mentioned in the Electoral Roll of 1989 as the father of the petitioner are different persons. 16. 16. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that because of the aforesaid error committed by the Tribunal as well as this Court by wrongly identifying the said Atarjan Akond as a male who is otherwise shown to be female in the records, the entire opinion of the Tribunal as well as the decision of this Court will stand vitiated and on that ground only, the order passed by this Court on 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 would warrant review, and the order passed by the Tribunal on 21.06.2018 in F.T. Case No.301/2016 would be liable to be set aside. 17. In response, Mr. J. Payeng, learned Special Counsel, Foreigners Tribunal has strongly resisted the review petition on several grounds. 18. It has been submitted by Mr. Payeng that even the scope of this Court in entertaining any petition challenging the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal is limited inasmuch as while doing so, this Court exercises the writ of certiorari to examine the validity of the opinion of the Foreigners Tribunal. He submits that it is well settled that the scope of writ of certiorari is limited, and since a review has been sought of the order passed by this Court, obviously, the scope of such review petition would be much more restricted. 19. It has also been submitted that the grounds taken by the review petitioner for review have been mentioned in this review petition which read as follows, “GROUNDS A) For that there is a error apparent on the face of the record. As such the impugned Order dated 03-12-2018 is liable to be reviewed. B) For that Atarjan Akond which according to the Hon’ble Court is elder brother of the petitioner is not correct which may be clearly made out on a bare perusal of Annexure No.3, i.e. the Voter List of 1989 which goes to show that Atarjan Akond is not a male but a female relation with Sahed Ali. As such, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2018 is liable to be reviewed by this Hon’ble Division Bench. C) For that minor discrepancy of the age of different members of the family in the Voter List cannot be rejected unless it can be shown that all other contents of the document is contradictory to each other.” 20. As such, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2018 is liable to be reviewed by this Hon’ble Division Bench. C) For that minor discrepancy of the age of different members of the family in the Voter List cannot be rejected unless it can be shown that all other contents of the document is contradictory to each other.” 20. Referring to ground A mentioned in the review petition, it has been submitted by Mr. Payeng that though the petitioner contends that there is error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order dated 03.12.2018, it has not been explained and enumerated as to what is the error which is apparent on the face of the record. 21. Mr. Payeng further submits that, the plea taken by the review petitioner that Atarjan Akond has been wrongly considered to be brother of the petitioner by this Court, was not taken when he filed the writ petition, WP(C) No.5888/2018. 22. In this regard, Mr. Payeng has led us through the pleadings of the writ petition, WP(C) No.5888/2018 and he submits that there is not even a whisper in the aforesaid writ petition wherein the petitioner had taken this plea that Atarjan Akond is not a male but a female and as such, this ground cannot be raised in the present review petition as it will be hit by constructive res-judicata. 23. Mr. Payeng also submits that this fact is not new nor discovered only now. It is a fact which was already in the knowledge of the petitioner earlier while filing the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No.5888/2018 inasmuch as the learned Tribunal had already made a decision based on the aforesaid facts and as such, the petitioner cannot raise this plea in this review petition. 24. Mr. Payeng has further submitted that the present review petition is also hit by delay and laches. He submits that while the order was passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5888/2018 on 03.12.2018, the petitioner preferred the review petition only on 11.06.2019 and as such, there has been a delay in preferring this review petition and this delay has also not been explained before this Court. 25. Mr. Payeng submits that this review petition cannot be used for the purpose of rehearing the matters which have been already considered by this Court in WP(C) No.5888/2018. In this regard, Mr. 25. Mr. Payeng submits that this review petition cannot be used for the purpose of rehearing the matters which have been already considered by this Court in WP(C) No.5888/2018. In this regard, Mr. Payeng has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 320 . 26. Referring to the aforesaid decision in Kamlesh Verma (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated the principles governing review, he has submitted that review will not lie unless there is error apparent on the face of record. Further, a review will not be maintainable if there is a repetition of old and over-ruled argument or if the mistake is minor of inconsequential import and the error apparent on the face of record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. In this regard, Mr. Payeng has drawn our attention to para 20 of the aforesaid decision in Kalesh Verma (supra) which reads as follows, “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1 When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reasons” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 , to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT, 2013 (8) SC 275. 20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 27. It has been submitted by Mr. Payeng that in fact what is sought to be done in the present review petition is to bring a new argument that there was a mistake or error committed by the Tribunal in showing his mother as the elder brother which, according to the petitioner, has vitiated the opinion. Mr. Payeng submits that, that submission would, however, be of no consequence inasmuch as in the voters list of 1966, the name of said Atarjan Akond is not shown as the mother of the petitioner or the wife of Sahed Ali. 28. Mr. Payeng submits that it has to be proved by the petitioner that the said Atarjan Akond is the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, even if the Tribunal had made an error by treating the said Atarjan Akond as a male, it will have no consequence inasmuch as the petitioner has to prove that the said Atarjan Akond is his mother and also that his mother Atarjan Akond was a resident of India prior to 1971. Thus, having not established the aforesaid relationship, merely because the Tribunal had made the aforesaid error, it cannot be a ground for seeking a review. 29. It has been submitted by Mr. Payeng that the fact that a party cannot introduce a new plea in a review petition has also been reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 SCC Online SC 1034. 29. It has been submitted by Mr. Payeng that the fact that a party cannot introduce a new plea in a review petition has also been reiterated in the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 SCC Online SC 1034. He submits that what the review petitioner is seeking to do is that by bringing the aforesaid ground, the petitioner is seeking to change the entire judgment in his favour. If the plea of the petitioner is to be accepted at this stage, it would change the entire opinion of the Tribunal as well as the decision of this Court which is not permissible to be raised at this stage. 30. It has been also submitted that the petitioner is seeking to raise new pleas by changing lawyers which has been also deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9 SCC 736 , which had been referred to by this Court also in Review Petition No.70/2021 [ Jamal Uddin Vs. Union of India and Ors., disposed of on 03.03.2022]. It has been submitted that while one counsel had appeared for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5888/2018, another counsel has appeared in this review petition seeking to raise new pleas, which is not permissible. 31. Mr. Payeng also submits that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioner about the wrong mentioning of stream in the reference has been already dealt by this Court in 2017 (2) GLT 996 [Ananda Ghosh Vs.Union of India and Ors.] .He submits that wrong mentioning of the stream in the notice does not vitiate the proceeding if the reference is otherwise correct and in the present case, as also observed by this Court, the record would show that in the enquiry, it is shown that the petitioner had entered India after 24.03.1971. It has been submitted that the said ground which has already been argued earlier cannot be taken before this Court in a review petition. It has been accordingly submitted that the present review petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 32. Having considered the above submissions in the light of the records which have been produced before us, two issues apparently come before us to be considered. It has been accordingly submitted that the present review petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 32. Having considered the above submissions in the light of the records which have been produced before us, two issues apparently come before us to be considered. First of all, whenever a review petition is filed, this Court has to examine as to whether such a review petition comes within the scope of review. It is settled and well accepted principle of law that a review would be permissible and maintainable if the review petitioner is able to show that there is error apparent on the face of records. In fact, this is a plea which had been taken by the review petitioner in the present case. Therefore, we will examine first as to whether there is error apparent on the face of record. 33. We have given our anxious consideration on this issue and perused the original records ourselves. 34. In the original records, what we have noted is that the petitioner had relied on three voters lists, of which two are of importance i.e. the certified copies of the voters lists of 1966 and 1989. The said certified copy of voters list of 1966 records the name of one Sahed Ali as the son of Rohim who is a male and aged about 25 years belonging to village Borghat of Mouza Gorimari, P.S. Tezpur, District Darrang, Sub-Division Tezpur of 78 No. Balipara Legislative Assembly Constituency. The other voters list is the certified copy of voters list of 1989 which shows the following names including the name of the present review petitioner, Hazarat Ali. 1 2 3 4 5 6 291 184 Atarjan Akand Sahed Ali F 57 292 Muslem Ali Akand -do- M 31 293 Kitabjan Akand Muslem Ali F 28 294 Hazarat Ali Akand Sahed Ali M 29 295 Lalbanu Hazarat M 26 296 Matbanu Ahed F 19 N.B. Column No.1 is the Serial No., Column No.2 is the house No, Column No.3 is the name of the voter, Column No.4 is the father’s/Husband’s name, Column No.5 is the Gender, Column No.6 is the age of the voter as on 1989. 35. In the said voters list of 1989, the name of Atarjan Akond has been shown as the wife of Sahed Ali and in the Column indicating the gender, it has been shown as “female”. 35. In the said voters list of 1989, the name of Atarjan Akond has been shown as the wife of Sahed Ali and in the Column indicating the gender, it has been shown as “female”. The said voters list also relates to village (ka) Borghat of Mouza Balipara, P.S. Rangapara, Sub-Division Tezpur and District Sonitpur. 36. The plea of the review petitioner is centred around this entry of the name Atarjan Akond. Certainly, in the document which has been produced before us and which was exhibited before the Tribunal as Exhibit-B, it shows the name of Atarjan Akond as a female along with Sahed Ali. Therefore, we are of the prima-facieview that the said Atarjan Akond shown along with Sahed Ali is not a male but a female. The question which arises before us is as to whether such an error is apparent on the face of record and whether such error is of such nature which will have a serious repercussion or consequence for the petitioner in decision of the authority concerned. 37. As reproduced and discussed above, there is a specific finding by the learned Tribunal that Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hazarat Ali (the petitioner) are the sons of Sahed Ali. This is a finding of fact. Similarly, this Court also made the observation in the order dated 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 which is sought to be reviewed that the Electoral Roll of 1989 (Exhibit-B) records the name of the petitioner aged 29 years along with two brothers, i.e. Atarjan Akond aged about 57 years and Muslem Ali, aged 31 years, showing their relation and one Sahed Ali. 38. 38. The Tribunal observed that if the age of Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hazarat Ali were 57 years, 31 years and 29 years respectively in 1989 then their age in the 1966 would be 34 years, 8 years and 6 years respectively, whereas Sahed Ali son of Rohim who is claimed as the father of the proceedee is shown as 25 year old in the year 1966 from which it is seen that Atarjan Akond, son of Sahed Ali is 9 years elder to Sahed Ali son of Rohim who is the projected father of the proceedee and accordingly, the learned Tribunal held that it is proved that Sahed Ali who is shown as father of Atarjan Akond, Muslem Ali and Hajarat Ali i.e. the proceedee, as shown in the voters list of 1989 and Sahed Ali, son of Rohim whose name is recorded as voter in the year 1966 are two different persons. 39. From the above, it is clearly evident that by treating the said Atarjan Akond as the elder brother of the proceedee, the Tribunal came to a definite conclusion that Sahed Ali who is shown in the voters list of 1966 is different from the Sahed Ali who is shown in the voters list of 1989, on the ground that the projected elder brother of the petitioner could not have been older than his projected father. This view was also adopted by this Court in the order passed on 03.12.2018 for the same reason. 40. From the above, it is clear that the finding of this Court as well as the learned Tribunal was that the projected father Sahed Ali whose name is reflected in the voters list of 1966 is different from the projected father whose name is recorded as the father of the petitioner in 1989 voters list. In fact, that is one of the grounds for declaring the petitioner to be a foreigner by the Tribunal as well as by this Court on earlier occasion. If that is so, we are of the view that such a finding of the Tribunal as well as by this Court goes to the root of the proceeding. The proceeding was obviously initiated against the petitioner to ascertain about his doubtful citizenship as to whether he is an Indian or a person who had come from the specified territory during the aforesaid period mentioned above. 41. The proceeding was obviously initiated against the petitioner to ascertain about his doubtful citizenship as to whether he is an Indian or a person who had come from the specified territory during the aforesaid period mentioned above. 41. The opinion of the learned Tribunal was in favour of the State on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he is indeed the son of Sahed Ali whose name is found reflected in the voters list of 1966. Obviously, if Sahed Ali whose name is found in the voters list of 1966 is not the same person whose name also appears in the voters list of 1989, it can certainly lead to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is not the son of any person who was in existence at least since 1966. Therefore, in our opinion, the said finding is of consequence as far as the citizenship of the present review petitioner is concerned. If that is the position which arises by considering the said Atarjan Akond as the bother of the petitioner, which the petitioner claims to be an error, we are of the view that, that would fundamentally change the nature of the proceeding inasmuch and it will deprive the Indian citizenship of the petitioner. To that extent, we are of the view that the aforesaid decision by the Tribunal as well as by this Court would have far-reaching consequences as far as the present review petitioner is concerned. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether such an error is an error which is apparent on the face of the record. 42. Having gone through the original record ourselves, we are of the view that the finding by the learned Tribunal as well as by this Court that said Atarjan Akond is the elder brother of the petitioner is not based on record but contrary to the record which is plainly visible in the records. Atarjan Akond had not shown to be a male but shown to be a female. Further, before the learned Tribunal comes to a decision that Atarjan Akond was a brother of the present review petitioner, Hazarat Ali, it should have been based on certain evidence which we do not find to be present in the record. 43. Atarjan Akond had not shown to be a male but shown to be a female. Further, before the learned Tribunal comes to a decision that Atarjan Akond was a brother of the present review petitioner, Hazarat Ali, it should have been based on certain evidence which we do not find to be present in the record. 43. We have noted that the petitioner had not pleaded specifically in the written statement that Atarjan Akond is the mother nor that Atarjan Akond is his brother. Thus, if the petitioner had not specifically pleaded that Atarjan Akond is his mother, obviously, the finding of the Tribunal have to be based on some other evidence on record. 44. We have also gone through the record and seen that while the petitioner submitted his written statement and evidence, he was not subjected to any cross-examination as to the identity of the said Atarjan Akond. Therefore, there cannot be any basis for drawing the conclusion by the Tribunal that Atarjan Akond is the brother of the present petitioner. Though there is an element of doubt as to the real identity of Atarjan Akond inasmuch as the petitioner also did not specifically mention in his written statement nor in the evidences that she is her mother, yet this can not distract from the fact that the Tribunal, at the same time, could not have taken a view that Atarjan Akond is the brother of the present petitioner in absence of any specific evidence or pleading of any party. 45. From the records, it is seen that the State did not lead any evidence. 45. From the records, it is seen that the State did not lead any evidence. Though it is well settled that it is primarily the onus of the proceedee to prove that he is a citizen of this country or that he is not a foreigner, yet, it does not divest the State from any responsibility as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarbanada Sonowal vs. Union of India & Another, (2005) 5 SCC 665 wherein the Hon?ble Supreme Court in para 26, had held that in order to establish ones citizenship, normally, the proceedee may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth, (ii) place of birth, (iii) name of his parents, (iv) their place of birth and citizenship, as these are facts which would necessarily be within personal knowledge of the person concerned and not within the knowledge of the authority of the State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, went on to observe that after the proceedee has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. Therefore, nothing prevented the State authorities from leading evidence or rebute the evidence of the petitioner that he is the son of Sahed Ali who was a voter of 1966. Para No. 26 of aforesaid decision in Sarbananda Sonowal (supra) reads as follows: 26..................... In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv) their place of birth and citizenship. Sometimes the place of birth of his grandparents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act. All these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the person concerned and not of the authorities of the State. After he has given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. If the State authorities dispute the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” (Empasis added) 46. What we would like to observe is that there is no evidence that Atarjan Akond is the brother of the present review petitioner. Accordingly, we are of the view that the identity of the said Atarjan Akond which is shown to be female in the voters list of 1989 could not have been treated to be a male and to be the elder brother of the present review petitioner in spite of said name of Atarjan Akond being shown as a female in the voters list. To that extent, we are of the view that there is error apparent on the face of the record. 47. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to go in detail about the other finding arrived at by this Court in WP(C) No.5888/2018 on 03.12.2018 or by the learned Tribunal in F.T. Case No.301/2018 on 21.06.2018, inasmuch as if there is an error apparent on the face of record in respect of an important finding by the Tribunal or by this Court and which has a serious consequence for determination of citizenship of the petitioner, we are of the view that the review petition would lie. 48. Then comes the next issue as to whether the review petition which had been filed on 11.06.2019 is belatedly filed or not. We have noted that the order was passed by this Court on 03.12.2018 as mentioned above and the review petition was filed on 11.06.2019. Yes, there is certainly a delay of about six months. However, this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we do not feel that the said delay is of such nature that the petitioner would be barred from approaching this Court on the ground of delay of six months. 49. Yes, there is certainly a delay of about six months. However, this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we do not feel that the said delay is of such nature that the petitioner would be barred from approaching this Court on the ground of delay of six months. 49. We, however, do not like to make any observation as to the finding by the learned Tribunal as well as by this Court that the wrong mentioning of the period of entry into India in the notice would vitiate the proceeding. We have kept in mind the observation by this Court in AnandaGhosh (supra). But we are also mindful of the fact that in a proceeding before the Foreigners Tribunal, normally, the only document given to a proceedee is the notice that he is a foreigner by specifying the period during which he had entered Assam. Then obviously if the notice is to be of the effect that he had illegally entered during the aforesaid period of 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971, it would have a different consequence for those people who alleged to have entered Assam after 25.03.1971. Whether the wrong mentioning of period in the notice would ultimately vitiate the proceeding has already been decided by this Court, yet, the fact also remains that a wrong mentioning of period of entry can certainly create serious prejudice to a person who is sought to be proceeded. But we do not wish to enter in this arena inasmuch as we are not called upon to decide this issue in this review petition. The said issue does not fall within the scope of this review petition, as we are primarily concerned with the issue as to whether there was error apparent in the face of record or not in the finding of the Tribunal and this Court. 50. Under the circumstances, for the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the order passed by this Court on 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 would be reviewed. That leads to the next course of action to be taken. Once we have held that the aforesaid order dated 03.12.2018 passed in WP(C) No.5888/2018 deserves to be reviewed, the said writ petition ought to be heard afresh. That leads to the next course of action to be taken. Once we have held that the aforesaid order dated 03.12.2018 passed in WP(C) No.5888/2018 deserves to be reviewed, the said writ petition ought to be heard afresh. However, considering the nature of the case as discussed above, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to rehear the matter as all the records are before us, which we have already gone through and we have noted an error which is clearly apparent on the face of the record and accordingly, we feel that there is no need for a fresh-hearing of the writ petition and the same can be considered now, which we do, by recalling the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in WP(C) No.5888/2018. Under the circumstances, we are also of the view that the opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. 51. Accordingly, we allow this review petition by recalling the order dated 03.12.2018 passed in WP(C) No.5888/2018, and considering the materials on record and for the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam on 21.06.2018 in F.T. Case No.301/2016 is liable to be set aside and the matter be liable to be re-considered by the learned Tribunal by taking into consideration that Atarjan Akond is a female and not a male nor a brother of the petitioner. 52. As regards the submission advanced by Mr. Payeng that the review petitioner had not specifically pleaded in the writ petition about the mistake and error committed by the learned Tribunal by treating Atarjan Akond as the elder brother, we are of the view that the said submission may not detain us in view of the specific finding arrived at by this Court on 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018 to the effect that the said Atarjan Akond is the elder brother of the petitioner, which is patently erroneous. It may be noted that while passing the order dated 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018, the original records which are produced before us, were also produced before the writ court but this Court failed to notice such an apparent error. 53. Mr. Payeng has prayed that the writ petition be listed for fresh hearing. It may be noted that while passing the order dated 03.12.2018 in WP(C) No.5888/2018, the original records which are produced before us, were also produced before the writ court but this Court failed to notice such an apparent error. 53. Mr. Payeng has prayed that the writ petition be listed for fresh hearing. In our opinion not much useful purpose will be served in view of the original records which are placed before us, which clearly indicate the apparent error on the face of record. Hence, it would merely delay and prolong the proceeding. We are of the view that it would be better if the matter is considered afresh by the learned Tribunal. 54. Accordingly, the present review petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5888/2018 as well as the opinion rendered by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Tezpur (1st), Assam on 21.06.2018 in F.T. Case No.301/2016. 55. Resultantly, the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above by us. 56. LCR be remitted forthwith to the concerned Foreigners Tribunal.